ArticleF1000Research2024
Automated classification of mandibular canal in relation to third molar using CBCT images.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of artificial intelligence-assisted CBCT analysis for predicting inferior alveolar nerve proximity to impacted mandibular third molars: a diagnostic accuracy study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based identification and maturation assessment of the zygomaticomaxillary suture in cone-beam computed tomography images.Progress in orthodontics · 2026Article
- Association between mandibular third molar impaction pattern and mandibular crowding severity: a retrospective radiographic study.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Automatic mandibular third molar and mandibular canal relationship determination based on deep learning models for preoperative risk reduction.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dental radiology has significantly benefited from cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) because of its compact size and low radiation exposure. Canal tracking is an important application of CBCT for determining the relationship between the inferior alveolar nerve and third molar. Usually, canal tacking is performed manually, which takes a lot of time. This study aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model to automate classification of the mandibular canal in relation to the third molar. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted using 434 CBCT images. 3D slicer software was used to annotate and classify the data into lingual, buccal, and inferior categories. Two convolution neural network models, AlexNet and ResNet50, were developed to classify this relationship. The study included 262 images for training and 172 images for testing, with the model performance evaluated by sensitivity, precision, and F1 score. Results: The performance of the two models was evaluated using a 3 × 3 confusion matrix, with the data categorized into 3 clases: lingual, buccal, and inferior. The mandibular canal and third molar have a close anatomical relationship, highlighting the need for precise imaging in dental and surgical settings. To accurately classify the mandibular canal in relation to the third molar, both AlexNet and ResNet50 demonstrated high accuracy, with F1 scores ranging from 0.64 to 0.92 for different classes, with accuracy of 81% and 83%, respectively, for accurately classifying the mandibular canal in relation to the third molar. Conclusion: The present study developed and evaluated AI models to accurately classify and establish the relationship between the mandibular canal and third molars using CBCT images with a higher accuracy rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.